#Civil Appeal

The Delhi High Court held that forfeiture of earnest money under an Agreement to Sell is not automatic; the party retaining the deposit must prove actual legal injury and quantifiable loss under Section 74 of the Indian Contract Act. The court distinguished the K.R. Suresh precedent, ruling it inapplicable to simple recovery suits, thereby strengthening a vendee's right to recover earnest money absent proven damages.

The Supreme Court ruled that limitation for appeals under Section 62 IBC starts from the NCLAT order date, not receipt of the certified copy. A delay in obtaining the copy cannot be excused if the appeal is filed after limitation has commenced, impacting parties challenging NCLAT rulings.

A belated amendment under Order VI Rule 17 CPC is allowed if due diligence is shown and it does not fundamentally alter the suit, the Supreme Court held. It vacated the trial and Orissa High Court orders, imposed costs, but left property question open.

The Supreme Court held that a non-signatory may be joined as a veritable party in arbitration when a nexus with the arbitration agreement exists, upholding the referral court’s jurisdiction under Section 11 of the ACA, 1996 and clarifying doctrine scope.

The SC ruled that an operational creditor whose claim is extinguished under IBC resolution plan may assert a set-off defence in arbitration initiated by resolution applicant, with no affirmative recovery. This limits clean-slate for OCs after CIRP.

The Supreme Court held that an express contractual bar on interest (Clause 54 GCC) absolutely bars pre-reference interest, overriding Section 31(7) of the Arbitration Act. It upholds party autonomy, affecting contractors and employers drafting GCC terms.

SC held that MCGC becomes payable only on bill issuance, so the limitation period under Section 56(2) Electricity Act, 2003 starts from billing. Hence a 2007 demand for MCGC for 1998 was time-barred, affecting consumers and licensees.

Court clarified that revenue entries alone cannot establish dedication or adverse possession, shifting burden to claimants to prove unequivocal intent and hostile possession. This affects parties relying solely on revenue records in property disputes.

A bank qualifies as a ‘bank’ under the SARFAESI Act and can enforce its provisions even when the loan was originated by an NBFC not classified as a financial institution. This extends SARFAESI recovery powers to assigned secured debts, affecting banks acquiring such loans and the borrowers whose loans are transferred.

The Supreme Court quashed a Rs 425 crore Section 114 Customs Act penalty after finding the order relied on AI-generated citations that were non-existent or mis-quoted. It imposed a zero-tolerance rule for unverified AI material, rendering such decisions void and urging verification by customs officials and litigants.

The Supreme Court held that professional clearing members in the NSE’s futures-and-options segment have no statutory duty to verify individual client positions and that restitution orders beyond the powers granted by the SEBI Act are ultra vires. As a result, SEBI cannot impose blanket restitution on PCMs, leaving liability with the trading members and their clients.

A 2014 revision notice cancelling an earlier land-record order was set aside because the Karnataka Land Revenue Act imposes a strict three-year limit on exercising revisionary power, which cannot be extended by subsequent amendments or the Limitation Act. The ruling bars authorities from reviving old cases beyond that period, protecting owners of surveyed lands.

The Supreme Court ruled that a penalty can be imposed only when the Foreign Travel Tax is not paid at all, and that a one-day delay in deposit does not attract the fine under Section 38(3). This limits liability to non-payment, obliges the government to refund the Rs 71.29 million penalty with interest, and affects airlines and other carriers subject to the tax.

The Gujarat High Court ruled that a District Valuation Committee report is valid evidence for compensation when sale deeds are missing, and upheld the 60 % market-value deduction with a 10 % annual escalation. This sets a clear valuation method for land acquired under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, affecting both landowners and acquiring authorities.

The Delhi High Court overturned two district-court possession orders, ruling that an unregistered agreement to sell cannot be invoked to obtain possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC and does not attract the protection of Section 53A of the Transfer of Property Act. This limits claimants from using informal sale agreements to secure possession of property.